ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: RPY on May 02, 2012, 01:09:12 AM
-
Here is my story...
I am not at all a web page designer, I just have very basic skills.
I set up a 4 page static site for my brothers LLC a while back. He has a one-man LLC and needed something on the net. The site was based on the usual "Free Template". Earlier this year he received a letter from GI, but ignored it thinking it was a scam. Then this week he received the "Notification of Case Escalation" and I started researching GI. They are asking for $1225 for an image used in the background.
Now here is the questionable part:
1) The image is "Highly" modified. Only about 20% looks similar.
2) The address is only similar to the registered name of the LLC
3) The site is actually registered in my name.
Does any of this have an affect?
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
-
For number 1 I guess people would have to see the two images to determine if it was really as heavily reworked so that only 20% remained. There _might_ be a reasonable "fair use" of the original if it was more for reference than actual content. I don't know what you are asking in #2. If it is mailing to the wrong address and he is still somehow getting it, I guess you could ignore it. But they will eventually send a Fed Ex to that same address and I presume someone will sign for it.
And for #3 if you could get your brother to play along he could simply reply that an outside marketing individual (you) took it upon themselves to create the site. He could point out that the site is not registered by the LLC and suggest they contact you.
I don't know where you'd want to take it from there. I can visualize a scenario where you refer the copyright troll back and forth for a while until they buzz off.
-
This afternoon I have been able to do a little more research, specifically into the artist.
The image is listed by GI as a "High-Res Photograph". The majority of the GI image actually is a photo while the rest is an illustration. The portion of the image that is the similar to the template I used and the GI image is the illustration.
Now the interesting part... the artist listed on GI only takes photographs. His portfolio only shows photographs and his bio only mentions film and video. There is not a single illustration on his page.
From the way it looks, the image from the template is actually the original.
Could GI actually be infringing on copyright of someone else?...
-
For number 1 I guess people would have to see the two images to determine if it was really as heavily reworked so that only 20% remained. There _might_ be a reasonable "fair use" of the original if it was more for reference than actual content. I don't know what you are asking in #2. If it is mailing to the wrong address and he is still somehow getting it, I guess you could ignore it. But they will eventually send a Fed Ex to that same address and I presume someone will sign for it.
And for #3 if you could get your brother to play along he could simply reply that an outside marketing individual (you) took it upon themselves to create the site. He could point out that the site is not registered by the LLC and suggest they contact you.
I don't know where you'd want to take it from there. I can visualize a scenario where you refer the copyright troll back and forth for a while until they buzz off.
In response:
2) I actually meant the letter is technically addressed to a company that does not exist.
Is this not true extortion if they are addressing these to a company that the website is not registered to, or is a phone number an email address enough to link the company to the site?
-
I have discussed "fair use" with Oscar a few times. I think I am finally understanding what he is saying to me and I am understanding where the line might be. People are confusing derivative work with fair use.
On ELI, we "get away" with a lot simply because ELI is a commentary, critiquing, editorial, reporting website. We don't simply post other people's content and material for the heck of it. We do so for very specific reasons.
For others, ss far as I am concerned, even if there is no fair use argument available, as a practical matter, courts will take a moderate view. I simply don't believe people will be financially devastated even if you "lose".
Even if someone commits copyright infringement (1-4 images arena), the copyright trolls will have you believe you committed this criminal act where the penalty is tens of thousands of dollars. To me, I would equate more of a speeding ticket. Certainly very inconvenient to get one and deal with but not the end of the world. Unfortunately, newbies take extremes. They either ignore it or they become melodramatic about it.
Oscar Michelen Says:
Fair use is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement and has very limited applications. Most people seem to think that it means that if I am not making any money off the use I can use it. That is not true. It must be for a strictly educational purpose or for critique or commentary or to make fun of the copyrighted work (parody). That's it.
Some folks also believe that there is some rule that if you change it by 70% or so that's fair use because you've made it different. This is a complete fiction and the copyright holder usually also owns the rights to make 'derivatives" of his copyrighted material.
-
I understand that, and I guess my use of the term "fair use' was incorrect. But like "fair use" there is a bit of a blurry line between infringement and inspiration. If I see your picture of a kitty with a slice of bread around his head and I crop this image and put it in a collage of other kitty's, I have infringed. If I see this kitty and it gives me the idea to paint a cat between two slices of bread, I have not.
So when someone says "only 20% of the image remains" I wonder how different it really is. I mean you'd have to completly change the animal, not just the bread. (I also wonder how picscout picked it up.)
(http://www.tntmagazine.com/media/News/cat_bread_2.jpg)
By the way this image is for educational purposes and is from the original article at http://www.tntmagazine.com/news/weird/cat-breading-putting-your-cats-head-in-bread-trend
-
I guess in this instance the issue of "fair use" is moot as I cannot provide the original artist's information, and GI probably will not provide any ownership info. If the GI picture is infringing on someone elses copyright, im sure they will not provide anything. I understand I can ask for ownership information as a delay tactic, But this may not be the best strategy.
What opinions are there about writing a letter stating the website listed on the demand letter is not owned or operated by my brother's company and leave it at that?
-
I guess in this instance the issue of "fair use" is moot as I cannot provide the original artist's information, and GI probably will not provide any ownership info. If the GI picture is infringing on someone elses copyright, im sure they will not provide anything. I understand I can ask for ownership information as a delay tactic, But this may not be the best strategy.
What opinions are there about writing a letter stating the website listed on the demand letter is not owned or operated by my brother's company and leave it at that?
personally I really like timtime's approach shown here:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/my-proposed-getty-letter-response-and-settlement-offer/msg6480/#msg6480
I think the letter in the above link has all the elements I would want in the unlikely event I landed in court over one image: a well thought out offer, no admission of guilt, demand for proof.
Of course, I wouldn't copy that letter, rather I would use it as a guide for a customized response.
just my 2 cents ... keep the change :)
-
PicScout and TinEye use pixel matching algorithms to detect even a very small portion of an image coming directly from another image. If the pixels match exactly even on a 72x72 pixel sample, they can make a case that it's nearly impossible it didn't come from the same image. The extent of manipulation of an image is a very vague notion out there, almost myth-like. If you used any portion of the image in question and it can be "recognized by the artist" (albeit only by using very sophisticated software), then they feel the can come after you.
I'll give you an example of an image that was being given away explicitly as a free background seamless tile by a person who remembers pulling the original image from a royalty-free stock photography CD-ROM you could buy anywhere. She remembers this happening about 10 years ago. She used cloning and stamping techniques to create a sort of collage image tapestry:
http://silviahartmann.com/background-tile/images/island-paradise-tile.jpg
Now here's the image in question, a work claimed by Vincent Khoury Tylor and Hawaiian Art Network LLC:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1181042&size=md
In my mind there's little question that this VLK image was the source used for the seamless tile. Would you say it's been altered 20%? 50%? 75%? Mister Tylor feels he has been ripped off to the tune of over $8,000 in spite of the fact that he sell a 4x6 print of the very same image for $10.00:
http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/detail.aspx?ID=2
So while I agree that in fact his image was used (if you use photoshop layers, you can see the pixel match on the palms and waves), I have to question a couple of things. First, did Mister Tylor sell his images away to some stock clearinghouse company way back in 2002, maybe one by the name of Webshots, and then turned around in 2009 and registered a large batch of images under his name?
The specific title is not in the copyright.gov records, it's included in a batch registration titled "Hawaii 2000" and registered under the name of a person who appears to be Mister Tylor's wife.
The TinEye archive shows a cached image of the photo in question which had been posted on Webshots.com. Mr. Tylor is a member in good standing and if I don't remember wrong, this image was still posted on webshots only a few days ago. I clicked on the link and got an "under maintenance" page instead of the image. See if that's what you get:
http://www.webshots.com/pro/photo/3158696
This image is present in so many "innocent infringement" scenarios, it's not even funny. It could be Mister Tylor's image was pulled out of the stock CD virtually everywhere in the free world where you could buy it, and anyone who had paid for the CD was "seeding" the internets with this image.
Heck, I even found it used as a PRINT PRODUCT! Of all things, a jigsaw puzzle being offered in the Italian version of eBay! Isn't this copyright abandonment? It's been out for years on CDs, websites, print products, etc. I could have purchased (and still can!) the 1,500 piece version of the puzzle for a mere 13.50 euros! Notice the absence of his watermark on the lower right hand corner:
http://www.ebay.it/itm/PUZZLE-1500-PZ-CLEMENTONI-73193-31937-84X59-HAWAIAN-PARADISE-CASAFASHIONITALIA-/330726338079?pt=Giochi_da_Tavolo_e_Puzzle&hash=item4d00d36e1f
There are so many different versions of this image out there that have been used by kids, nonprofits, AOL grannies, and all kinds of imaginable demographics, and it has been repurposed so many times for so many uses, I'm tempted to do a slideshow including every iteration of this image. Some of them made the coffee come out of my nose, such as:
http://photos1.hi5.com/0032/775/723/HDiLX3775723-01.jpg
http://www.lug.bg/images/tve1.jpg
Hey, it's even been on TV! I wonder how many million bucks they owe for that.
There's definitely something very strange going on with this image. Check out the TinEye database results for more information. Here's the URL for the search:
http://www.tineye.com/search/6574c84bf7c5e132b42d04ed16dca0c7e7565253/?page=1&sort=score&order=desc
One thing is for sure. This image inspired the "eye cheese" sensibilities of lots of people all over the world. Let's give respect where it's due.
-
Keep in mind it's not just "this image" there are dozens if not more of his oimages all over the web, and yes I strongly feel he is guilty to some degree of seeding these images and not trying to stop it...this is a very good post, the more of this we can gather the better it will be for those how go to court to fight this..A judge would be very interested to see this..Clearly this ass hat Vincent K Tylor is not making money being a faux-tographer, as he has resulted to underhanded scummy extortion tactics, he might consider rejoing the Jehovahs Witness Program, cause one day karma is going to bite him in the ass and he'll be looking for some sort of salvation...
-
Buddhapi, again you're absolutely right. This is just ONE image! We could repeat this exercise with any image in his "Hawaii 2000" set, or any of the sets and individual works registered under his name. Would we get similar results?
It's sad to see instances like little Hannah Montana collages on deviantart.com pages, a site that is very popular with high school and college kids with creative inclinations, were included in the TinEye results. Those have been taken down for the most part. One has to wonder if they squeezed the parents for a few hundred bucks in all those cases or if they were decent enough to let them go with a "cease-and-desist" request.
-
Hello all! I have a quick question and wonder what you think, just don't know what topic it would apply to....
Let's say I saw a photo of a rose on internet, and draw a picture of this rose with my own hand (on a paper with paint and a brush). But the drawing looks very similar to that photo: the same shape of the flower, colour, position, etc., so you can easily recognize, that the drawing was made using that particular photo. Now, I take the digital photo of the drawing and use it for website design, or a greeting card for sale, or smth else like this (for business purposes). Would the copyright be applied in this case? Would the copyright holder of the digital image of that rose I made a drawing of, say - hey, they used my image to create a drawing they use for business now? Logically, it shouldn't be like this, as I draw this with my own hand and I do not use his/her particular digital image on my website? What do you think, guys?
-
Katerina, my opinion is that it doesn't meet the "strict" requirements of "infringement" under law.
However, if the author of the original photo wanted "compensation" or for the painter to "cease and desist", he/she would could to go to court to argue the case if the painter didn't comply.
Then, it's up to a judge to interpret the law... and who knows what a judge would decide?
It also depends how well one can argue their case.
You may recall this case:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/hope-image-flap/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/artist-behind-obama-hope-poster-pleads-guilty-to-criminal-contempt-in-nyc/
In the above case, an out-of-court settlement was made. That's how many of these things end up.
So, I guess that we can all agree that making a painting of a photo is sometimes risky at best.
S.G.
-
Theres also an example of this concerning VK Tylor being upset someone painted one of his photos and was selling the painting without permission:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/vincent-k-tylor-tuesday!/..
In most cases I think fair use would come into play, with this Tylor sample it is pretty clear, that it was a copy of the original, which is a slippery slope...now if the artist was to use the flower itself as the subject, with a different composition / background, there would be an issue..after all it's a friggin flower, I have them in my backyard, and TYlor couldn't claim copyright..
-
That's interesting....So, basically, if I see a photo of the rose, and draw it in a little bit different shape/size, using a little bit different shades of the colour, composition, background, etc, in this case it will be hard to say that this particular image was used to create a drawing on a piece of paper....right?
-
I agree with you Katrina. Again, just my opinion... but I've read the "law". The law is pretty specific.
For the most part, nothing ever comes of these things. People paint, and nothing happens most times.
However, when somebody creates something (like a painting) and makes a lot of money from it, opportunists will attempt to "cash in", even if it's only over some photo that looks "similar".
The tactics of copyright trolls are aimed at simply forcing a settlement that's more economical for the victim than fighting in court.
When this tactic works, and the painter pays a "settlement", it doesn't matter what the law states, or whether the painter is "in the right" or not, as the troll gets what he/she wants.
On the other hand, it's quite difficult to "win" an infringement case over a "concept" as shown in the cases below:
Gentieu vs Getty:
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00135
Diodato vs Spade:
http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20050927_0001342.SNY.htm/qx
S.G.
-
That link with Obama picture is interesting.... What if the painter just draw the portrait of Obama? Of course he would look alike as in the picture.... Or what if that painter saw that press over TV, put on pause, and then draw? There could be everything....May be I am not right, but drawing is a drawing, and photo is a photo.....Well, anyway, if it is settled down...
-
SoylentGreen, I read the copyright law too :) I couldn't find anything there about this topic, that's why I asked. Anyway, if I am drawing a picture.... I am creating my own art with my own hands, but not use the same digital image....I can find the the same flower, but I can like the IDEA of composition, or how it is set on the photo, etc....and use it in my drawing. The IDEA cannot be copyrighted. That's the law.
But yes, you are right, if copyright trolls see the opportunity of fast and easy cash - they will do that. Anyway - hard to prove anything.
I haven't visited this forum for a long time, since that issue of my husband with Masterfile. Now, it is amazing how many new copyright trolls appeared to make money on that. But I wasn't surprised, btw. It is just ridiculous. Thanks God, judges uses common sense in these cases.
Now, it looks that you can infringe even if you watch some videos or photos online.... Not me to teach, but when you watch video or a picture, basically you download this to the "cache folder" on your computer.... right? This is how the internet works. I don't think that they will ever stop "infringement"....
-
don't confuse "watching" something online, which may or may not be cached, with "downloading" a movie or something from a bit-torrent site, 2 completely separate beasties
-
BTW what was your husbands outcome with Masterfile? Just curious...
-
Yes, I do understand the difference between "watching" and using bit torrent.
As for my my husband's issue (now ex-husband), he settled it down with McDougal of Masterfile. I cannot give the details of settlement though, as he signed the confidentiality agreement upon settlement.
-
Thats to bad, he settled...for what it's worth and I don't really care, you can share that info, because it was "he" that signed the agreement not you...they reallylike to try to cover their tracks..if it were me ( I would never settle) and was going to settled I would never sign a confidentiality agreement, as I want to share with the world..
Yes, I do understand the difference between "watching" and using bit torrent.
As for my my husband's issue (now ex-husband), he settled it down with McDougal of Masterfile. I cannot give the details of settlement though, as he signed the confidentiality agreement upon settlement.
-
well, I just couldn't handle all this considering what was happening afterwards. Though, he is happy with settlement. That's fine then. But I have been visiting this forum from time to time, getting some updates on the whole situation with these copyright trolls, for the purpose of education. Again, I was impressed by the number of new companies who try to get fast and easy cash.
-
This seems to have gotten a little off topic..... Since there is no real way to prove the origin of the image, I am looking for a little advice on how to proceed. I have been reading as much as I can so that I do not ask the same questions twice.
After doing more research I have found the template I used on a page that states the images may be used under the Creative Commons license. It still seems as if the GI image is actually using a portion of the image from the free template site. Does this have any effect on anything, or will they just continue to hound us about it? If I respond from the company, then they are officially linked to the site.
Option 2 is to respond to them stating the web page is not owned, operated, or endorsed by the company. This is a true statement as I do not work for the company, did not get paid in any way, and I personally paid for the hosting/registration.
Option 3 is to ignore the letter until forced to address it. (the LLC may not exist much longer due to financial issues, so this is not totally out of the question.
I know the easy way to handle this is to just join the program, but at this point it is really not an option for me.
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
-
Thats the problem with "FREE template sites, no one know where anything came from and if in fact the creative commons license even matters.. so a couple of question, so I can better give you answers..
was the letter addressed to you or your LLC ( I'm assuming it was addressed to you)
Is the domain name registered with your name or the name of the LLC? ( I will also assume it has your name on it)
If my assumptions are correct, then replying from the company will serve no purpose as you own the domain, so it's your site.
They will continue to hound you if you ignore, or if you respond to it. Bottom line is they want your money. Eventually it will go the route of many others, couple of letters from Getty Images, then escalted to NCS Recovery ( which you will then need to spend time throwing it back to Getty), then letters ( not so nice ones ) will come from Timothy McCormack and they will probably demand more at that point.. Same story different recipient, they will not go away unless you can show then an invoice and license to use the image. If you can't deal with, or have the stomach to deal with this for the next 3 years, hire Oscar, they are then bound by law to contact only him, and will not bother you anymore..
-
The letter is addressed to the LLC. The name it is addressed to is close to, but not the correct name of the company. Just as well, the domain name is only a portion of the LLC's registered name.
The website is registered in my name.
-
If the LLC is closing down shortly, might as well wait it out, I would probably edit the domain info to reflect your name and the LLC, once the LLC is gone they are dead in the water, and being it's an LLC they can't come after your personal assets. This may not get them off your back, but they could sue a company that doesn't exist, at which time I would let them know that if they continue to badger you , you will have no choice to take action and file complaint with the State Attorney General, and you get a letter from their attorney McCormack you can also complain to the bar assc....depends on how far you want to go with it..
-
Nice to see that Katerina is still following the posts here, and contributing again.
Sorry to hear about your divorce, Katerina, however, I'm happy to hear that you've put that infringement issue behind you.
As copyright laws don't go into great depth about "derivative works" and "fair use" in those terms, I think that judges use recent precedents to help guide their decisions.
Readers of the forum may be interested in "The Professional Photographers Legal Handbook"
Don't ask me why it's available online like this; but that's not my concern. Read it online, don't save it to disk, and you haven't "infringed".
http://images.mescasa.multiply.multiplycontent.com/attachment/0/Sec60AoKCCUAAEnPbSg1/The%20Professional%20Photographers%20Legal%20Handbook.pdf?key=mescasa:journal:63&nmid=231756627
Refer to page 79 "Parody as Fair Use".
In Rogers vs Koons, Koons made a sculpture of the subject matter of Roger's photo, then took a photograph of that sculpture.
Koons lost the infringement case, because the court determined that the photo of the sculpture, while "adapted in a different medium, photographs of the sculpture could harm the original photographer’s market."
My interpretation of this would be that while a painting or sculpture based on a photograph created by another artist might be permissible, the sales of photographic copies of the painting or sculpture might harm the original photographer's market, and therefore be an infringement.
The book makes a further reference to a case against Koon, in which he prevailed (based on fair use) on page 81.
In Blanch vs Koon, Koon had created a painting based on a collage made from a photograph taken by Blanch.
The court found that Koon's use of Blanch's material was "transformative"; that is "he used Blanch’s image for a 'sharply different' purpose than Blanch’s purpose in creating the image."
Additionally, the court found that Blanch's use of the photo was for a glossy magazine inclusion, but Koon's use was intended for an art gallery exhibit.
Furthermore, Blanch hadn't used or licensed her photo for use after that first magazine publication, and therefore Koon's use did not “cause any harm to her career or upset any plans” that she had for the photograph.
The book points out that the courts have begun to take greater note of the "purpose of the person making it (the transformation)", rather than the actual "nature of the transformation" (artistic medium and percentage of the original work used for example).
Again, more often than not, these sorts of things are settled out of court.
Here's a link explaining a lawsuit over a graffiti mural that appeared for a second or two in a Chrysler commercial:
http://www.partridgeiplaw.com/graffiti-and-law-copyright-%E2%80%93-framed-jennifer-lopez%E2%80%99s-fiat-commercial
Another graffiti artist has lost an infringement case against him based on a stencil "copy" of a RUN-DMC photo:
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/06/10/photographer-victorious-in-copyright-lawsuit-against-graffiti-artist/
Some analysis of the above:
http://www.streetartnews.net/2011/01/thierry-guetta-aka-mr-brainwash-sued.html
Clearly, the most uncertain (and therefore the most risky) court cases are those that "the law" really doesn't cover.
One cannot be sure of who will actually prevail in such circumstances.
S.G.
-
It's not guaranteed that he will close down, it's just not in the best shape right now. If it was going out for sure, I wouldn't worry about it. This is why I am having trouble with how to approach the issue.
Can the LLC be legally "connected" to the site since it benefits from its existence? If it is, my best option seems to be to send them a response letter from the company stating the creative commons license, then waiting for them to respond, then asking for proof of copyright.....And so on...
If they cannot be legally connected, I may write the letter from the LLC stating it is not associated with the site. This could have the possibility of leading them to begin harassing me personally.
I am still a little unclear on what defines "ownership" of a site?
-
Generally speaking the "Registrant" name on the domain is the "owner" of the site.. what I do since I handle many domains for clients is use their comapny name as the registrant, my name and company name as the administrative and technical contact, therby making them the "owner", but I still have control over the domain.
As far as connecting the 2 , I guess it would depend on the what the site contains, if it contains the company name, then yes they can be connected ( obviously).. Getty may get tired of dealing with one or the other and switch targets as well
-
Nice to see that Katerina is still following the posts here, and contributing again.
Sorry to hear about your divorce, Katerina, however, I'm happy to hear that you've put that infringement issue behind you.
As copyright laws don't go into great depth about "derivative works" and "fair use" in those terms, I think that judges use recent precedents to help guide their decisions.
Readers of the forum may be interested in "The Professional Photographers Legal Handbook"
Don't ask me why it's available online like this; but that's not my concern. Read it online, don't save it to disk, and you haven't "infringed".
http://images.mescasa.multiply.multiplycontent.com/attachment/0/Sec60AoKCCUAAEnPbSg1/The%20Professional%20Photographers%20Legal%20Handbook.pdf?key=mescasa:journal:63&nmid=231756627
Refer to page 79 "Parody as Fair Use".
In Rogers vs Koons, Koons made a sculpture of the subject matter of Roger's photo, then took a photograph of that sculpture.
Koons lost the infringement case, because the court determined that the photo of the sculpture, while "adapted in a different medium, photographs of the sculpture could harm the original photographer’s market."
My interpretation of this would be that while a painting or sculpture based on a photograph created by another artist might be permissible, the sales of photographic copies of the painting or sculpture might harm the original photographer's market, and therefore be an infringement.
The book makes a further reference to a case against Koon, in which he prevailed (based on fair use) on page 81.
In Blanch vs Koon, Koon had created a painting based on a collage made from a photograph taken by Blanch.
The court found that Koon's use of Blanch's material was "transformative"; that is "he used Blanch’s image for a 'sharply different' purpose than Blanch’s purpose in creating the image."
Additionally, the court found that Blanch's use of the photo was for a glossy magazine inclusion, but Koon's use was intended for an art gallery exhibit.
Furthermore, Blanch hadn't used or licensed her photo for use after that first magazine publication, and therefore Koon's use did not “cause any harm to her career or upset any plans” that she had for the photograph.
The book points out that the courts have begun to take greater note of the "purpose of the person making it (the transformation)", rather than the actual "nature of the transformation" (artistic medium and percentage of the original work used for example).
Again, more often than not, these sorts of things are settled out of court.
Here's a link explaining a lawsuit over a graffiti mural that appeared for a second or two in a Chrysler commercial:
http://www.partridgeiplaw.com/graffiti-and-law-copyright-%E2%80%93-framed-jennifer-lopez%E2%80%99s-fiat-commercial
Another graffiti artist has lost an infringement case against him based on a stencil "copy" of a RUN-DMC photo:
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/06/10/photographer-victorious-in-copyright-lawsuit-against-graffiti-artist/
Some analysis of the above:
http://www.streetartnews.net/2011/01/thierry-guetta-aka-mr-brainwash-sued.html
Clearly, the most uncertain (and therefore the most risky) court cases are those that "the law" really doesn't cover.
One cannot be sure of who will actually prevail in such circumstances.
S.G.
S. G.,
As usual, you always come up with some interesting and helpful information. I guess, now I can be more cleared on how these things work regarding paintings and pictures. I think now I have to refer to a Copyright law again! and of course, more research! :)